These are interesting points, but they very much read like post-hoc rationalisations to me. Let me take a different tact, I want to try challenging some of the

These are interesting points, but they very much read like post-hoc rationalisations to me. Let me take a different tact, I want to try challenging some of the more fundamental assumptions. Do you really believe in the quality of Leetcode as an evaluation criteria, or are you trying to justify it? Google used lateral thinking puzzles for something like 8 years before realising they were completely useless (not just unreliable - they had zero predictive power). We have precedent for these companies using selection methods that are bananas, and smaller companies copying them. >There are other situations, such as when measuring actual ability is sufficiently difficult or impossible Sure, that's an example of why the market might be irrational. But then I'd ask: do you think it's extremely difficult/impossible to judge other programmers? I mean that seriously. I don't find that difficult. I can usually size up another programmer pretty quickly. If I sniff around a bit and look at some example code, my intuitive read will be much more three-dimensional and reliable than giving them two Leetcodes. You don't find that to be the case? How much do you spend on hiring one candidate? I'm guessing tens of thousands, if not more. You can't invest a day into trawling that candidate's GitHub? "But not all candidates have a GitHub." Ok, but some do, so that's not the reason. What I think is actually extremely difficult is a large, beurocratic organisation developing a replicable, second-hand evaluation system. It's a standardised test, and it has the same problems as most standardised tests. > you get a process that is reasonably good at eliminating false positives Right, it's good as a filtering mechanism. But if it's just a filtering mechanism, it shouldn't take up the majority of the interview. Like, here is one of the assumptions you're making: most good engineers grind Leetcode before a new job. I don't think that's true. I think the number of people who grind Leetcode, even among the best candidates, is extremely small. Like <10%. If that's the case, it's inherently a very flawed criteria. If nothing else, you're filtering for the candidates that everyone else is filtering for - which means you're filtering not for capable candidates, but for candidates who are overpriced. Here's another thing that's absent from these discussions: algorithms questions were developed before Leetcode existed. They're not designed for a world where you can game them. Leetcode is a bug in the system, but a lot of your justifications are, "it's fine, because the selection criteria is actually designed to select people who game it." Really? You want people to game the criteria? I don't buy it.